GEMS appeals ruling it must follow FOI rules

By Ken Borsuk

Published
12:00 am EDT, Sunday, October 1, 2017

GREENWICH — The Greenwich Emergency Medical Service will appeal a Freedom Of Information Commission ruling that found the ambulance service should be held to the same transparency standards as government departments even though it is an independent agency.

The FOIC in August upheld a ruling from 1988 that put GEMS under public agency open records laws.

GEMS contracts with the town to provide ambulance services. Because of its independent status, its leaders have argued it should not be subject to government open records laws. They decided to appeal that ruling in state Superior Court following a Sept. 25 meeting of the agency’s board of directors.

“We ultimately felt we had no choice but to do this,” said GEMS Chairman Jenny Baldock. “GEMS was formed as an independent organization for some critical reasons … Our concern is that this opinion starts to conflate Greenwich EMS with the town of Greenwich and, we believe, jeopardizes some of those benefits that we really wanted to have.”

Among the benefits she listed were insulating the town from civil liability, not adding to the town employee rolls and retaining for GEMS the ability to raise funds for capital needs.

She also said FOI law conflicts with privacy laws to which GEMS must hold, and places an undue burden on the nonprofit agency that does not have the manpower to comply with FOI requests.

The court papers were filed in New Britain on Sept. 28. A schedule for proceedings has been announced.

The FOI Commission in August ruled that because GEMS receives public funds from the town to cover operating expenses -- $4.65 million in the current budget — and is subsidized in other ways, such as use of the town’s 911 system, it functions as a town agency and should be subject to open records laws.

The ruling was the result of a complaint brought by former GEMS Director of Operations Joseph Soto, who has sought documents from the agency through FOI after being terminated in April 2016.

Under GEMS regulations, a terminated employee has the right to have that action appealed to the board of directors. GEMS’ board maintains Soto’s termination was considered and upheld by the board, though he holds the meeting never took place. He is seeking documentation that proves it did. The FOIC ruling allowed his efforts to continue.

“I don’t understand why they are appealing a decision that hasn’t been a problem before at GEMS,” Soto said. “During my time in management we received very few requests from employees. It’s a total waste of money.”

On Friday Baldock insisted, as GEMS board leaders have throughout the dispute, that Soto has been provided with all the existing documents he has requested, a claim he denies. Soto said he asked for minutes and indications of where and when meetings about his termination took place and he was told there were no documents responsive to his request.

“Honestly, I knew that this information did not exist because a meeting never took place,” Soto said. “This just validates the fact that GEMS management and the personnel committee of the board of director did not follow established policies and procedures.”

According to GEMS’ board, the meeting took place on May 6 but no minutes were taken as his termination was not reversed.

“Mr. Soto’s statement that the personnel committee meeting did not take place is inaccurate, as is his claim that GEMS management and the personnel committee did not follow established policies and procedures,” Baldock said.

The FOI ruling is in “direct conflict” with the state Personnel Files Act, she said, which guards the privacy of non-public employees.

“If we comply with FOIA, we are violating the Personnel Files Act,” Baldock said. “That kind of illustrates why it doesn’t make sense for FOIA to apply to GEMS.”

“The other key consideration we raised last spring is that it is exceptionally expensive for us to respond to FOIA as a non-profit and as a medical service provider,” she said.

Baldock said every document that is requested has to be reviewed for privacy under the Personnel Files Act as well as for HIPAA compliance. Having to remove potentially sensitive medical information, Baldock said, adds extensive time needed to prepare a document to be released. She said one FOIA request last year caused 1,400 emails to be reviewed.

Baldock insisted the appeal is not meant to shield GEMS from scrutiny.

“We don’t have anything to hide,” Baldock said. “The town of Greenwich is our primary customer. We need to make them happy. We want to be open and responsive as much as possible.”